Has The Legal Authority Of The United Nations Surpassed That Of The United States Congress?



by Ruby Henley

In March of 2012, Senator Jeff Sessions had a shocking exchange with Leon Panetta, Obama’s CIA Director.  In the exchange caught on video, you can see General Kelly, the current White House Chief of Staff, sitting smugly behind Panetta.  I find it very revealing that Kelly is present at this controversial time during the Obama administration, and now he is guarding President Donald Trump as White House Chief of Staff.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the President should not consult the Congress but look to the globalist power of NATO and the United Nations for direction when deciding to openly engage in foreign war went largely unnoticed.  But it needs to be noticed now as a flashing alert.  We are fighting for our sovereignty at this time, and we need to know what we are really up against.

Questioned by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) about what legal authority the Administration of Barack Obama has to intervene in Syria as it did it Libya, Panetta made one thing remarkably clear: The Administration answers not to the American people, the Congress or the Constitution, but to NATO and the U.N.

I have been searching for signs of the Deep State, and here we certainly have one.  The Deep State tends to work behind the scenes to overthrow the power and sovereignty of the United States.  It is very concerning how surrounded President Trump is by those who are rooted in the Deep State – namely General Kelly.  

Here is the video of the conversation between Panetta and Sessions – note General Kelly sitting behind Panetta.

When Panetta said, “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission.”

Sessions is clearly baffled by what Panetta said indicating an international group must approve US combat.

Is this not enough to wake up the American people?  How much more do we need to realize the United Nations – New World Order – is already in power.

Here is more of the exchange between Panetta and Sessions:

Sessions said, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

Panetta replied, “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

 

As we explore the roots of the Deep State, we can go back to 1945, when Truman signed the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), which abolished Congress’s constitutional function in declaring war.

Under the UNPA, the U.S. President can “negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council” concerning the use of American military personnel and facilities for UN “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement” missions.

This began the “Deep State creep.”

My question is are we looking at a UN invasion in the United States soon?

 

What were some of the comments made by those who observed this exchange between Panetta and Sessions?

Ron Paul:

For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders… But such actions should no longer come as a surprise. During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use U.S. military force against Libya. But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress. That was, and still is, unacceptable.

 

Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) was also angered by Panetta’s remarks and introduced a resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 107) declaring that the President should be impeached for using the military without the consent of Congress.

The resolution reads:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Article Continues Below

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

 

After researching for hours, this Bill was never passed into law.

House Concurrent Resolution 107:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/107

There are only two actions listed:

  1. 03/07/2012  Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  Action By: House of Representatives
  2. 03/07/2012 Introduced in House Action  By: House of Representatives

Here is more information on the Bill and who sponsored it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/107/all-info

This list should show you who the good guys are:

Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2]

Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4]

Rep. Burton, Dan [R-IN-5]

Rep. Coffman, Mike [R-CO-6]

Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8]

Rep. Benishek, Dan [R-MI-1]

Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]

Rep. Paul, Ron [R-TX-14]

Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]

Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10]

Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6]

Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5]

 

The Bill was never enacted, and I am not surprised.  Here is the lowdown:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hconres107

Introduced:  Mar 7, 2012

112th Congress, 2011–2013

 

Status: Died in a previous Congress  This resolution was introduced on March 7, 2012, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

 

Sponsor: Walter Jones Jr.

Representative for North Carolina’s 3rd congressional district

Republican

 

Text:  Read Text »

Last Updated: Mar 7, 2012

Length: 2 pages

 

IV

112th CONGRESS

2d Session

  1. CON. RES. 107

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2012

Mr. Jones submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

 

I see this as further evidence that the Deep State is now in control.

1,847 views

Follow IWB on Facebook and Twitter


You may also like...